Re: CITOKATE
It's been four days and no one has yet responded in this thread with an observation I hoped someone would point out: that criticism is like theory in having a different (and less negative) meaning when used in a formal academic setting (e.g., literary criticism, where the statements made by the critic about the piece of writing being criticized may indeed be positive, neutral, or negative) than in the vernacular (where criticism is usually considered to be both negative and personal). Though obviously I did deliberately steer people reading my original post toward the vernacular meaning . . . . . . ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: CITOKATE
On Thu, 8 May 2008, Jim Sharkey wrote: Alberto Monteiro wrote: PS: oops, I used nazi, muslims and name-calling in the same post. Am I going to get banned? :-) No, just shunned. Or tarred and feathered. We have to have a vote. I don't like tarring and feathering, it sounds more painful than necessary. Also, I think shunning is a little extreme for the situation. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: CITOKATE
Julia Thompson wrote: Jim Sharkey wrote: Alberto Monteiro wrote: PS: oops, I used nazi, muslims and name-calling in the same post. Am I going to get banned? :-) No, just shunned. Or tarred and feathered. We have to have a vote. I don't like tarring and feathering, it sounds more painful than necessary. Also, I think shunning is a little extreme for the situation. That's an awfully easygoing stance on crime you have there, Ms. Thompson. What the heck kind of Texan are you? :-p Jim ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: CITOKATE
On Fri, 9 May 2008, Jim Sharkey wrote: Julia Thompson wrote: Jim Sharkey wrote: Alberto Monteiro wrote: PS: oops, I used nazi, muslims and name-calling in the same post. Am I going to get banned? :-) No, just shunned. Or tarred and feathered. We have to have a vote. I don't like tarring and feathering, it sounds more painful than necessary. Also, I think shunning is a little extreme for the situation. That's an awfully easygoing stance on crime you have there, Ms. Thompson. What the heck kind of Texan are you? :-p If the person is going to still be alive at the end, I draw the line at anything I haven't heard my BDSM-interested friends discuss as possibilities for play. Setting people on fire properly, with the right equipment on hand for putting it out at the right time, is fine and dandy. Shunning, I reserve for things like someone lying about the possibility of having given his girlfriend an STD that would be reasonably treatable, if unpleasantly so, for most people, but which might actually kill *her*. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: CITOKATE
On May 7, 2008, at 4:38 AM, Alberto Monteiro wrote: That's not true. You are a liar! Can't you remember the four listmembers that were banned in the past because of that? You are a Inner Party Member, and you want to cancel those unpersons! Less so now that most of the conservatives have gone into hiding 8^). Banned. They were banned. The extremists on _both_ sides were banned. It may well be that you are speaking with tongue in cheek, Alberto, but in my four or so years on this list, AFAICT, banning is extremely rare. And it's a damn good thing, too, because I know that I have posted in anger and would have been subject to banishment on a list with a less (shall we say) liberal approach. Some of the conservatives who once participated actively on this list still pop up from time to time (consider this a shout-out to Gautam), but are mostly quiet these days because Barack Obama hasn't been elected yet. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: CITOKATE
On 09/05/2008, at 4:03 AM, Dave Land wrote: It may well be that you are speaking with tongue in cheek, Alberto, but in my four or so years on this list, AFAICT, banning is extremely rare. Those of us who have been here for 10 or more, however, have seen some very upsetting things. A couple of bannings, and a few people chased away for good. The whole story probably isn't know in full by any one person (including me, who did take a substantial break after one incident). I only came back when I heard that there'd been a clean break and the List effectively re-formed. And it's a damn good thing, too, because I know that I have posted in anger and would have been subject to banishment on a list with a less (shall we say) liberal approach. That's absolutely true. Charlie. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: CITOKATE
Alberto Monteiro wrote: PS: oops, I used nazi, muslims and name-calling in the same post. Am I going to get banned? :-) No, just shunned. Or tarred and feathered. We have to have a vote. Jim ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: CITOKATE
Olin Elliott wrote: I agree. I often don't participate in conversation threads online (including on this forum) for precisely that reason, because they seem to degenerate too easily into name calling and other nastiness. I like having a moderated forum, but the problem is always how to draw the line between moderation and censorship. At the extremes its easy (usually) -- the totally whacko responses are generally obvious. But the closer we edge in toward the center the more dificult it becomes to tell crazy criticism from truly valuable criticism, and I always have to aware of my own biases and anxieties. Is this criticism really crazy or does it just make me uncomfortable for personal or ideological reasons? Am I rejecting it for legitimate reasons or am I just protecting my belief system? It is never an easy line to draw and I think we have to err always on the side of letting in more criticism, not less. As much as I hate it I've been on this list for over 10 years and the discussions here have certainly gotten heated at times, but it very seldom degenerates into name calling etc. Less so now that most of the conservatives have gone into hiding 8^). Brin himself asked that the list _not_ be moderated iirc. I agree we have to err on the side of openness. Even the crazy stuff can provide some insight. Sometimes. Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: CITOKATE
Doug Pensinger wrote: I've been on this list for over 10 years and the discussions here have certainly gotten heated at times, but it very seldom degenerates into name calling etc. That's not true. You are a liar! Can't you remember the four listmembers that were banned in the past because of that? You are a Inner Party Member, and you want to cancel those unpersons! Less so now that most of the conservatives have gone into hiding 8^). Banned. They were banned. The extremists on _both_ sides were banned. BTW, on a similar note, in another list that I participate, when there was that episode of the Muhammad cartoons, and everybody was preaching free speech, one listmember got out of the closet and started spewing naziphilic holocaust denial ideas. He chose the right moment to strike, because it would be contradictory to blame the muslims for their fanaticism and then apply censorship to the nazi. Alberto Monteiro PS: oops, I used nazi, muslims and name-calling in the same post. Am I going to get banned? :-) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: CITOKATE
On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 4:38 AM, Alberto Monteiro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: PS: oops, I used nazi, muslims and name-calling in the same post. Am I going to get banned? :-) Why, certainly. If you ask nicely. Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
CITOKATE
One problem with this philosophy is that these days I see a lot of criticism directed toward what the critic considers error which is not necessarily considered erroneous by others (Not thinking of any examples on the list, but thinking of the world at large. Politics is an obvious fruitful source of examples . . . ) I'm Okay, You're A Moron Maru . . . ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: CITOKATE
The bogus criticism is just part of the process. It is only by opening ourselves, our institutions and our leaders to the full range of criticism -- the overwhelming majority of which will always be useless or worse than useless -- that we can insure that the critical small percentage of necessary criticism gets through. No one said it was going to be neat or pretty or fun. Olin - Original Message - From: Ronn! Blankenshipmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussionmailto:brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Monday, May 05, 2008 11:53 PM Subject: CITOKATE One problem with this philosophy is that these days I see a lot of criticism directed toward what the critic considers error which is not necessarily considered erroneous by others (Not thinking of any examples on the list, but thinking of the world at large. Politics is an obvious fruitful source of examples . . . ) I'm Okay, You're A Moron Maru . . . ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-lhttp://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: CITOKATE
Some of the criticism I get on a forum supposedly dedicated to intellectual analysis of a theoretical book has so often degenerated into name calling that they set up a special Flame Wars thread just for that. Did it work? No. So be prepared to filter out a lot of Fascist! Well, you're a Liberal, so of COURSE you hate America!!, not to mention sexual innuendo etc. I think most criticism needs an On Topic moderator. http://idiotgrrl.livejournal.com/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: CITOKATE
I agree. I often don't participate in conversation threads online (including on this forum) for precisely that reason, because they seem to degenerate too easily into name calling and other nastiness. I like having a moderated forum, but the problem is always how to draw the line between moderation and censorship. At the extremes its easy (usually) -- the totally whacko responses are generally obvious. But the closer we edge in toward the center the more dificult it becomes to tell crazy criticism from truly valuable criticism, and I always have to aware of my own biases and anxieties. Is this criticism really crazy or does it just make me uncomfortable for personal or ideological reasons? Am I rejecting it for legitimate reasons or am I just protecting my belief system? It is never an easy line to draw and I think we have to err always on the side of letting in more criticism, not less. As much as I hate it - Original Message - From: Pat Mathewsmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussionmailto:brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2008 7:55 AM Subject: RE: CITOKATE Some of the criticism I get on a forum supposedly dedicated to intellectual analysis of a theoretical book has so often degenerated into name calling that they set up a special Flame Wars thread just for that. Did it work? No. So be prepared to filter out a lot of Fascist! Well, you're a Liberal, so of COURSE you hate America!!, not to mention sexual innuendo etc. I think most criticism needs an On Topic moderator. http://idiotgrrl.livejournal.com/http://idiotgrrl.livejournal.com/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-lhttp://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
